Atheism and utility
Benjamin Nelson has a very interesting post on science communication and atheism and passion at Talking Philosophy. Much of it transcribes a conversation he had with Chris Mooney in 2009, in which both of them agreed on some common ground.
…the most important point that I’m going to emphasize here is that [Mooney’s] stance is self-consciously political. At least to some extent, there is a “difference in goals” between Mooney and the activist atheists — by which, I think, he means a difference in priorities. Mooney does not think that speaking out against religion is a priority, and that it is on the whole detrimental to science education; while others think it is a priority, and that it supports science education in some respect.
I think that’s right, and it is the self-consciously political aspect that I have always found somewhat alien. I say “somewhat” because I can’t possibly reject all politics. I realize one has to weigh consequences (as we were just discussing with reference to the Vatican and a life-saving abortion) and consider priorities. But I think when serious discussion becomes too entangled with politics, then it simply stops being serious discussion and turns into some form of campaigning.
I would have liked to discuss Ben’s post in situ, but I’m banned from commenting there so I can’t, so I’ll do it here.
The post was barely posted, though, before the subject was changed to “why the new atheist crowd can’t just disagree with Mooney instead of despising him.” That wasn’t what Ben was talking about, but that became part of the discussion. I’d have thought the reasons would be well known, since they were certainly discussed a lot.
Here’s one reason. The fans of Mooney argue that he is passionately concerned about climate change and other, similar issues, and that’s why his priority is better science communication right now so that voters will make better, more informed decisions. But if that is true, I don’t understand why he has refused to engage with critics and answer genuine questions. The thing is: I couldn’t do what Mooney thinks I should do even if I wanted to, because I don’t know what it is. I really don’t. That’s why I asked him, from the outset – I really didn’t know. He said Jerry Coyne’s “Seeing is Believing” was bad strategy. I thought and still think Coyne’s review is an exemplary bit of reasoned discussion. These two facts together mean that I cannot figure out what is wanted. I’m not bullshitting when I say that; I really cannot figure it out.
And that’s a puzzle. If Mooney’s thinking really were political and strategic…then he would have engaged with questions. He didn’t. That’s a puzzle.
I know this is old old news, but it’s being discussed again, and a book I co-wrote is being cited, and Ben’s post is interesting and enlightening, so here it is anyway.
” Mooney’s stance is self-consciously political”
Translation: Mooney cares much more about politics than about truth.
(This tends to tick off some people.)
I can see two distinct questions here. One is whether science communication is helped or not by leaving atheism out of it. The second is whether Chris Mooney considers atheist activism as legitimate, regardless of its effects on any other area.
Just to follow on from my previous with one more question. If Mooney does consider atheist activism (otherwise) legitimate, ought it to be repressed merely because in his opinion it detracts from science communication?
Ophelia;
I read your postings with great interest. The comments I’ve read on how science is presented to the public, the arguments over WHO is to present Science and HOW they present it (and the WHY of the inner motivations, the purity of intent).
It’s very distressing WHO is the primary topic of disagreement–never mind the needs of Science–and is the litmus test for the proper authority. This WHO then determines HOW Science is to be presented to the public. But the HOW is considered, per Ben, a Mooney-esque publicity campaign.
But Mooney is too late. We already have NASA, National Geographic, Discovery channel and History channel all presenting the sensationalism, the gee-wow, of Science. Are we then debating some kind of Science PR “purity” over and above the purity of Science and the purity of intent?
The depths of the discussions is revealed over a concern about a belief in the Christian God. So while the disputants splash about in this huge mud-puddle (accomplishing little or nothing), somehow the idea is floated that Science and Religion can be compatible or even symbiotic. Has the nature of God been defined? No. Has the authenticity of Moses been determined? No. Is there a factual history of Jesus? No. Are there explanations for the supernatural events of the Bible using natural forces? No.
Until these questions are answered, discussion on accommodating religion to Science are moot: we have nothing to start with, no initial premise. It is all fantasy.
This is what I see when I read of these arguments, the tremendous waste of time spent in finding a common ground that just isn’t there. My fear is people may still be stubbornly able to “find” or create this common ground and because it’s all based on nothing, it will do more harm than good–no matter how pure the intentions are.
Daffyd ap Morgen
I can’t believe they keep asking the same questions over and over again (“Why do they hate Mooney? What has he ever done wrong? Where does all this animosity come from?”) as if they haven’t been answered over and over and over again, like billion times.
Jean & Amos: Why don’t you go read Don’t-Be-a-Dick’s blog – all the answers to your sincere questions have been meticulously put together in the comments under a single congratulatory blog post. Your questions have been answered, now take that into account and stop behaving like creationists.
When I first entered this conversation, awhile back, it was in defense of Mooney and Kirshenbaum. I thought people were attacking the idea of accommodation, in which I find real value. Then I realized that the issue was whether atheists should STFU. This I did not, and do not, understand. How, exactly, does that [affect] the broader dialogue in the country? Seriously, what is the mechanism by which defense of atheism impedes science communication? Who are these people who resist engaging with science because Jerry Coyne is a scientist? How, exactly, would public engagement with science be improved by Jerry’s silence?
My immediate engagement with science communication involves young adults interested in evolutionary biology. There are voices who tell them that their interest is somehow wrong if it leads to naturalism. Mooney seems to think that they should listen to those voices, because the general conflict between science and religion in the United States is [not] an incredibly fruitful one. I remain grateful to folks like Coyne who actually support their interest.
Mooney says:
Yeah, what is this evidence other than your own personal opinion?
Tea – heh – yes, it did cross my mind that all those questions are a tad faux-naïve.
Quite. I continue to think (on the basis of regular reading) that Coyne and Myers are very good science communicators. Ifitain’tbrokedon’tfixit.
And when it becomes campaigning, it stops being honest discourse and turns into something more or less akin to pandering. That is, trying not to say anything that would offend anyone and trying to make them feel you’re on their side.
Egbert, that’s a very good question. I was going to ask that, but it was a roundtable discussion and I didn’t want to hog the attention.
To my knowledge, when I looked for evidence in Unscientific America that bears on the claim (Chapter 8), I only found an endnote that cited some obscure Republican politician that said something negative about atheists. Perhaps I missed something?
Or at least it risks doing that.
Gnu atheism is at least partly campaigning, of course; that’s one of the things that earns it the “new” title or epithet. As such it risks bias, blind spots, more bias – the usual political stuff. But one of the main things it’s campaigning for is the ability, right, freedom to try to say how things really are, so that pulls in the other direction. Since the goal is to be able to tell (what one takes to be) the truth without deferring to priests or mullahs, gnu atheism can’t get completely entangled in politics without ceasing to be gnu atheism.
I hear amos squealing in my ear like a mosquito. He’s squealing about athests “playing the victim” and about how ridiculous that is in people “on the west coast of the US.” No. I’m not playing the victim; I’m pointing out that atheism is a despised minority view in the US (and other places, but especially the US). That’s just reality. Atheism is taboo here in many ways; it’s not whining or complaining or victim-playing to point that out and to think it’s an unreasonable state of affairs.
Sometimes obsessive critics can be useful, because they provoke you to think of objections to your own arguments. Other times they can be just ludicrous mosquitoes.
Ben – well I don’t think you missed anything! That’s the very issue that prompted Tim Broderick to call me a liar at the Intersection. He insisted that there’s lots of evidence in the endnotes to chapter 8. But there isn’t. There’s stuff, but it’s not evidence – it’s just people saying. It doesn’t back up the claims made in the body of the text.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Skeptic South Africa, Mr. C.. Mr. C. said: Atheism and utility – Butterflies and Wheels: Benjamin Nelson has a very interesting post on science communicati… http://bit.ly/erA0pR […]
Mooney believes that confronting religion is detrimental to scientific education. Then what about science education before atheists began being confrontational?
It seems to me, that the non-confrontational approach was in full-swing before confrontationism became visible, and it certainly has done nothing to improve science education.
Again, where is the evidence to suggest non-confrontationism is positive for science education? Where is the evidence to suggest confrontationism is detrimental?
It seems to me, if we go by the last century, that being non-confrontational in American scientific education has failed spectacularly, unless teachers were preaching atheism to their students all the time.
I see what you mean – the quote from Jean, though, “What I will never understand: why the new atheist crowd can’t just disagree with Mooney instead of despising him.” has a simple answer.
He’s a lying, gutless, honorless sack of feces.He’s a piss-poor example of a human being and not worthy of respect. He lost all of mine a long time ago and has never done anything to earn it. That’s my answer for that question. I can’t answer for anyone else and just speak for myself.I also disagree with him, as his strategy has no evidence to back it up and show that his strategy works, while we have seen evidence that the Gnus are having some effect, however small that might be.
Egbert – it’s also about the short term goal of getting people to put good science in the classroom, not about getting rid of the poor critical thinking skills and superstitious reasoning behind the denial of science. I prefer to stake out the long term goal of increasing critical thinking, good reasoning skills, and skepticism, and hopefully that will lead more people away from the shackles of religious authoritarianism. To me, treat the cause not the symptom, and from what I have seen so far, Mooney prefers homeopathic treatments as well.
Badger, for the sake of good argument and not triggering another few months’ worth of plaintive cries about the gnu atheists, let’s use precision instead of erm expostulation. Besides, you must see that your reply just raises the same question all over again! :- )
@Badger3k,
I tend to think that compartmentalisation means that a person can both retain silly beliefs while being fully educated in science. Take Francis Collins as an example.
This means that great scientific education will not necessarily get rid of silly beliefs, which seems more a problem in society. Clearly there seems to be a problem with scientific literacy in America, both in the classroom and in society, and I think the problem is that religion in America actively opposes science and all things progressive, rather than science education being particularly confrontational or substandard.
One possibly solution is to continue to challenge the respect and status that religion enjoys in society, something that we gnus are actually trying to do.
Meanwhile, for the sake of the eternally baffled and puzzled, I’ll say yet again why, as briefly as possible. It’s because the repeated hostile commentary about atheists (remember when he reported standing up in the audience at the AAAS to ask “What about the new atheists?”?) reenforces an existing prejudice against atheists, and I think he knows that perfectly well. I think he shouldn’t do that. I think it’s reprehensible.
I don’t think it’s the case that he does this because he is so concerned about global warming. The book doesn’t put it that way – the book puts it much more generally and loosely. An informed voting public is part of it, yes, but it’s far from dominant. Nothing is dominant. There are lots of reasons, no one of them very urgent. Maybe the closest thing to a chief reason is the idea that atheism is “divisive.” There’s a strong undercurrent of populist dislike of people who think they’re so smart in the book, however weird that seems.
So that’s it, basically. I think the atheism-bashing is a seriously bad idea, and I think he does it for bad, possibly careerist reasons, using bad arguments, and smearing people in the process. Being an atheist myself, I resent it.
Not all that mysterious, now is it.
While you’re banned from commenting there, you’re also listed as an associate editor on the “about” page. Perhaps TPM is different than TP, although it’s a bit confusing.
Following that thread, I see Jean repeatedly emphasizing the urgency of science communication, particularly with respect to the public’s appreciation of the evidence for anthropogenic climate change. Agreed. But the failure of the public to appreciate the evidence for anthropogenic climate change has dick to do with religion nor respect thereof. It has to do with a determined and extraordinarily well-funded opposition focused, not on scientists as atheists, but on scientists as enemies of free enterprise.
So how can it be that, facing irrational opposition, passionate and uncompromising advocates of science should be conveyed as not helping?
Ophelia – not sure what you mean? Do you mean to keep my personal opinion about the moral character of Mooney quiet (I can do that), or do you mean the discussion of long-term goals vs short term goals? For the first, I was just answering her question with the opinion of a US Vet and Officer, and a High School teacher who takes honor and telling the truth seriously, something I have extreme doubts about with the person I am talking about. If anyone thinks that argumentation will change my opinion on him, only he can do that, but in the interests of not causing a bruhaha, you can delete the comments on his lack of intergrity and honor. And this comment, if you wish.
The essential problem with the don’t-be-confrontational strategy is that someone, somewhere will be confronted by any given statement.
Saying the Earth is more than 6,000 years old is confrontational to Ken Ham. Saying that condoms are relatively protective against HIV is confrontational to the Pope. Saying that vaccines are unrelated to autism is confrontational to Jenny McCarthy. And so on and so on.
And this allows irrational believers to defend their beliefs merely by claiming to be offended. Anybody who persists in discussing contrary evidence is then being confrontational, which is A Bad Thing. No further argument needed.
The third problem is that it is patently and demonstrably untrue that confrontation is always a poor way to persuade people. If this was even remotely true, Glenn Beck would have an audience of 10, the Pope would be ridiculed every time he used the phrase “culture of death”, and Hitler would have been all washed up after the Beer Hall Putsch.
O:
I have to say, I think he does it for bad reasons, too. I hate to impugn a person’s motivations, but that’s my honest sense of the guy at this point.
I’ve reflected on this, thinking “Maybe I have this guy all wrong.” But every time he has had the chance to improve his standing in my eyes—every time he’s had the chance to save face, properly apologize, or rephrase a specious argument—he’s just dug his heels in deeper, making me think even worse of him.
Chris:
This is what I can’t believe Chris (Mooney) doesn’t realize! He fancies himself politically savvy, but his assessment of the most effective ways of persuading people is laughably naive. Actual political discourse flies in the face of Mooney’s central thesis—which is that “just telling people they’re wrong” doesn’t work—because look: Glenn Beck tells people “Hey, you’re wrong about President Woodrow Wilson—he’s evil! You’re wrong about social security—it’s a communist trap!” Religious people are converted left and right by being told they are wrong about the universe, and they’d better repent of their sins before it’s too late. Telling people they’re dead wrong is often the most persuasive thing to do. It’s like Mooney hasn’t even thought through his own argument.
Perhaps this thought comes to me more readily because I have a 4-year-old at home, but Mooney’s game plan requires that believers be treated a bit like small children. Shielded from the implications of some facts, though with the claimed aim of getting those facts through to them. If one simply tells them the unvarnished truth as one sees it, they’ll have a tantrum and scream “I don’t want anything more to do with science!” One of the many problems with Mooney’s approach is that it’s really demeaning to the population to which he wants so much consideration extended, while hostile to so many who have already accepted the facts he wants accepted. And the person dishing all this out is supposedly positioned in some perfect goldilocks middle.
It might be interesting to assemble comparative quotes from Mooney about confrontational theists and atheists and see how much even-handedness emerges.
If Mooney is indeed an atheist, does that not mean that he thinks that viewpoint is the best fit to the facts available? Can he escape his own embodiment of the opposite of what he preaches?
Chris Lawson
But it only works in one way! Confrontation is only a bad thing for the rational people. The irrationalists can be as confrontational as they like. Nobody to my knowledge has ever said something like Jenny McCarthy is confrontational when she claims vaccines are related to autism, or religious people are confrontational when they claim atheïsts are immoral, or whatever the irrationalists do/claim that is stigmatisizing, excluding or unsupported.
It is this double standard that really annoys me.
The reason I don’t like or respect Mooney is quite simply the whole Tom Johnson affair. It was obvious BS which he hadn’t properly verified, when TJ revealed he had been lying Mooney said it “could still be true” and it took one of the people who he bashed as “not helping” to come out with what the truth actually was.
At no point in the whole affair did he demonstrate the least bit of concern if what he was saying was accurate or not. This hits his basic arguments, because while he claims all sorts of things about how New Atheism is harming the scientific cause, most of his claims are backed by nothing in terms of statistics or even solid examples of new atheists putting people off of science in the first place.
His whole schtick comes off as someone trying to cash in on current media bandwagons. For example the Republican War on Science had a very different view to his current work – and when he published it it was during a time when it was “trendy” to bash Republicans. His current stance on New Atheism stinks of simply jumping off one bandwagon to join another.
A further concern is how he goes about banning. Ophelia was banned while allowing another commenter to defame her with no consequences. Even his treatment of John Kwok was basically contemptable – much as we all loathe the troll it was only when he dared step out of Mooney’s party line that he got banned.
Or at least that is why I don’t like him.
Ken Pidcock:
And the same goes for the various churches in general in America. They’re well funded and they’re politically active and evangelical, and they’re focusing their pressure by confronting science.
This goes to the heart of the problem: the pressure against science education and education in general is coming from religion. And Templeton is one of the major forces funding this pressure academically and in the media. And if some atheists get caught up in that pressure, losing their integrity in the process, then this is still part of the pressure from religion against science.
Excellent point, Egbert. The real nub of the problem is so simple. It’s bread and butter. Mooney et al say they want to improve science communication. In order to do this, they say one must remove fears acceptance of science will erode religious belief. The people in charge of religion know this is not true, therefore they fight acceptance of science. They know the truth of what Mooney et al deny, i.e. that more knowledge of science will lead to less adherence to religion and less in the collection plate. Mooney et al need us as villains, to distract from what’s really going on, i.e. as above.
To use an imperfect analogy, it would be easier to see the absurdity of all this if we were pacifists (rather than atheists) and the accomodationists were those trying to achieve the aims of pacifism largely by cosying up to arms manufacturers (who just need love and understanding, rather than profit, you see) and those pacifists who didn’t try to make peace with the weapons moguls would be blamed as the real obstacle to world peace.
Mooney’s place as the reasonable person in the middle can only be maintained by a) ignoring the very real motivation by those in charge of religion to fight science and prevent it being understood and b) shifting that blame, in another form, of course, to the Gnu atheists.
Stangroom: “Attacks on Chris Mooney’s character will not be tolerated here.”
I honestly don’t understand why people despise Mooney, nor where all the animosity comes from. Mooney is one exemplary science communicator who always makes sure to check his sources, supports his claims with facts and citations, answers all the questions, tolerates dissent, and is all too happy to retract his accusations if proven wrong.Above all, Mooney is very aware of how important tone is in science communication and therefore always makes sure to address his opponents with uttermost respect and understanding.
Stangroom, on the other hand, is rather pathetic.
I don’t see the Templeton mission as having anything to do with imposing religion on science or science education. Their work is much more rearguard, trying to stop the corrosion of religion by science. Anyone willing to say that there is no conflict is their friend regardless whether they are themselves religious. You can even be quite forthrightly atheist (articles by Susan Jacoby and Michael Shermer are currently featured at Big Questions Online) so long as you never, ever suggest that it would be better for science if belief would decline. Do that, and they will find a way to marginalize you. Fortunately, the margins are humming along quite well these days.
I’ve never paid very much attention to Mooney (never saw the value of what he’s been selling) and I don’t think I will be. Whatever hi motives, I can’t say I’ve found him terribly interesting. (More of a distraction then anything else.) Whenever his name gets mentioned the discussion enivtably becomes about his views on public atheism and pretty inaccurate attacks on atheist ‘celebrities.’ It seems public education comes second to painting him as a martyr and lone voice of reason.
Gnu atheism is both new and not new.
It is not new in that gnu atheists are not saying anything that was not said by Russell over 50 years ago.
It is new in that of late such atheism has been attracting more attention. If gnu atheism really is harming the cause of science education in the US then there will be evidence to that effect. Yet when we look at the evidence we see no sign that gnu atheism is harming science education. The percentage of Americans who are creationists has remained static for the last 30 years, way before the gnu atheism movement got going. There are certainly no marked changes in the last five or so years, which what would be expected if gnu atheism was harming science education.
So Mooney is not being honest when he claims gnu atheism is causing problems. He has no evidence to support his position, and what evidence does exists shows that gnu atheism seems to be having little effect on science education in the US. No real reason why it should of course, since science education in the US is not the main concern of the majority of gnu atheists.
There is another question, which is why is this all about the US ? Rejection of science in the US on religious grounds, be it evolution or AGW is a problem but if you think it is more important than issues such as female genital mutilation, or the subjugation of women in the name of religion then your priorities are seriously screwed.
Ken Pidcock,
There is plenty of funding in the quasi-academic field called “science and religion” by Templeton. Templeton offers enormous prizes and funding to academics that say nice things about religion in terms of science. That is pressure, or confirmation bias, that opposes objective scholarship or science.
Templeton wants to create a wedge, to make religion (or at least theology and quasi-academic fields) as respectable academically as science. It is a corrupting force, because it offers money and funding that aligns with its confirmation biases.
But Templeton is small fish compared to the tax-exempt funding, lobbying and political pressure of American Christianity in general.
@Tea,
While Mooney is obviously intelligent, and his language ‘clever’ and articulate, his integrity is what is questioned by his critics. His involvement with Templeton, for example, and his inability or refusal to answer his critics or those he criticises, contradict his claims to be a valuable communicator.
Very funny, Egbert.
Bruce –
Yes. That’s a nicely concise way of putting what I was trying to sum up yesterday. It is (obviously!) very much a current media bandwagon to bash atheists. That by itself should be enough to motivate a reasonable person to ask serious questions before joining in. Are there really good reasons to bash atheists? Is atheism really illegitimate or morally suspect in some way? Is there really no risk that this is just an illiberal reaction to people speaking up? Is this really a good bandwagon to hitch a ride on?
It’s popular, in an unpleasant, demagogic, anti-intellectual way, to bash atheists. To me those things are compelling reasons to run very fast in the opposite direction. This means I’m at least suspicious of anyone who is attracted rather than repelled.
Atheism itself is a kind of bandwagon now, of course – that’s the gnu bit. The bandwagon is (also of course) not completely free of anti-intellectual aspects – but they’re not central or dominant. Demagoguery is kind of ruled out because atheism is a minority view.
Mooney argues for accommodation as PR, “gnus” argue it’s failed epistemology (NOMA, ways of knowing). I’m on the gnu side in this, since Mooney at best can only hope for a 2-track strategy that offers bad but widely accepted approaches for believers who would prefer not to have their beliefs challenged, at the price of everyone else agreeing to shut up about how bad the arguments actually are. Since “gnus” won’t shut up the only move left is to paint them as “fundamentalist atheists” which is wrong in a way that Mooney doesn’t care much about given his priorities.
The alternative to this view would be that Mooney really does think “gnus” are substantively wrong on the points they make. I don’t suppose he can go very far in addressing the question without being diverted from his goal of not talking about the merits of unfortunate arguments which associate science and atheism. The better these arguments are the more unfortunate, which is at the bottom of the frustration with atheist “intolerance”. If we’re bad for arguing, the question of bad arguments can be allowed to lapse. Except…..somehow it hasn’t worked out that way. It looks like Mooney and Co. are stuck “hating” us for reasons they can’t really go into.
At least the discussion on Ben’s thread has for the moment moved from “why are new atheists so horrible?” to genuine questions about communication and what works and what is the evidence. It’s too bad the discussion on Ben’s thread couldn’t have stuck to what he was trying to talk about instead of veering into “why are new atheists?” from the fifth comment on and then veering into talking about me in particular by dragging Why Truth Matters into it. Ben wanted to talk about what he wanted to talk about, but that didn’t work out.
Here’s the thing. Kazez and amos were talking (covertly) about me on a blog where I can’t reply. They also do this at times on Kazez’s blog. amos does it on a third blog. All three of those blogs block me from commenting, so I can’t reply to all this thinly veiled sniping. Kazez and amos are not blocked from commenting here.
I think it is morally squalid to snipe at someone on sites where she can’t reply. Hence I sometimes reply here.
So there you are. Kazez and amos: if you want to snipe at me you should do it here, where I can reply. You’re both chickenshits for doing it where I can’t.
And this, for your further information, is another reason I (and doubtless others) dislike Mooney. He bans critics while letting his fans beat them up, with no ability to reply. That’s morally squalid.
So anyway, about communication and evidence. Someone called Hammill said
This kind of thing is exactly why I asked Mooney what he meant in the post about Coyne and “Seeing is Believing” and civility. I couldn’t tell what the message was; that’s why I asked. That’s why I kept asking, too – I thought it mattered, and I thought he would reply.
I still don’t see what was wrong with that. I still don’t see what was wrong with trying to get more clarity and precision. I still don’t see what was wrong with trying to make it a conversation. I don’t see it. Believe me, I’ve tried – and I still don’t.
O:
My best guess: Chris views his ideas on this subject as a matter of common sense. He thinks his argument—about what is and isn’t “helping”—is self-evidently true. Therefore, he sees it as ridiculous that anyone would even question it, let alone ask for evidence. Therefore, you are ridiculous, and who wants to fuss with ridiculous people?
It’s a “neat trick” as Dan Dennet might say: If someone is bringing up major shortcomings of your argument, things to which you don’t have good responses, rather than engage that person you can simply classify her as a “loon” or “ridiculous” or some such designation that places her outside the realm of Serious People. Mooney is very, very good at scoffing at legitimate questions as though they were just the silliest thing he’s ever heard. (As others have pointed out, this is a tactic favored by creationists like Hovind, Comfort and company—“Human being share a common ancestor with chimps! Why isn’t that just the craziest thing you’ve ever heard ladies and gentlemen?!”)
Andy – but that doesn’t square with what Mooney said to Ben. In Ben’s transcript, he does see other people’s point. Ben’s transcript (and Mooney’s performance at the Humanist party in October) indicates a better Mooney behind the written version.
I also don’t really agree that he’s very very good at the scoffing thing. If he were, he would have persuaded more critics, at least of his good faith if not of his arguments. I don’t think his stonewalling served him well. Not that his critics have made any difference to his career success, of course, but he could have had both – the success and the respect of intelligent critics.
Fair enough. Hey, I’m one of those crazy kids who liked Mooney for a good while before I came to dislike him. I have to say though, having observed the guy’s public arguments for a not-insignificant amount of time, I do think he’s a pro at scoffing. The stonewalling is itself a brilliant kind of scoffing: there’s a certain contempt implied when you stonewall people in the way he has, when you ban people in the way he has.
Some of this turns on the issue of how genuine Mooney is, or is being. And part of the problem with simply giving him the benefit of the doubt is that there is simply too much of him banning dissent, ignoring highly relevant and politely phrased questions and succumbing with incredible ease to confirmation bias. And I still think there’s a vitally important difference between Gnus and accomodationists that goes way beyond the caricature of two opposing camps brimming over with vitriol at each other. Each side espouses a different attitude as to the degree of opposition that ought to be expressed to religion. There is nothing in our position that seeks to limit their expression of their position, but imposing limits in the other direction (on how we express ourselves) is an intrinsic part of theirs.
Jean flatly denies Ophelia is or ever has been banned on her blog. This is something I am unable to test. I am a little puzzled as to why she calls reading B&W a mistake. She presumably thought, correctly, that she might find herself mentioned and, having looked, has been able to respond, though I do wonder why she does so only where Ophelia can’t do so in reply. She’s not banned here, is she?
And Ben is also banned from The Intersection (me too, from my very first attempt to post). You could get a really good blog going by banning everyone who hasn’t been banned from The Intersection.
@46
And the Mooney camp would respond that they don’t want to impose limits on our expression, rather, they want to argue for an approach that alienates as few potential allies as possible. (I.e., we should self-impose the limits.) The problem there is that so much of their subtext does indeed amount to STFU. (Recall the Humanist panel, and Mooney’s well-I-never reaction to PZ calling Francis Collins a “clown.” “How is that helping?” he asked. The real question is, What would Mooney prefer PZ do with his opinions of Collins? Is public criticism of Collins off-limits? Are we to stay quiet if we’ve anything but praise for the man?)
Andy (@ 45), so am I! In fact I still like the early Mooney. I’m still impressed by the work he did in that period.
Jean said that? (I’ve been out.) Well it’s not true. Maybe she’s forgotten.
Yes she said that.
No she is not banned here. Why didn’t she say it here instead of there? I can’t reply there – so yet again there is a lie about me that I can’t counter where it is.
Now I’ll have to find the post I wasn’t able to reply to last July, and the post where I said I wasn’t able to reply to it.
Sigh.
If that’s the case, why does “potential allies” not include other atheists who are more outspoken? By deciding that they are expendable, the accomodationists are simply falling in line with the general attitude that atheists are fair game. And the accomodationist label, after all, only gets applied to atheists in the first place. What the hell kind of identity is it that makes you criticise others for being the same thing, except too vocally?
It was this one.
http://kazez.blogspot.com/2010/07/i-cant-make-you-believe-mewhen-you-dont.html
She criticized me by name in the post but closed comments.
It could be that I haven’t tried to comment since. Closing comments on a post partly about me was banning enough.
Right. I commented there. amos suggested a cease fire, and I said by all means. The sniping has all been coming from Over There, and I have only been replying to it. By all means, cease fucking fire. Enough of this nonsense.
Having gone to the link to remind myself, I clicked on “home” and her latest is on Ben’s post. There was one comment listed and I thought, as I clicked to see what it would be, “it doesn’t have to be Amos, does it?” But it was.
Ah, I see you’ve taken care of that already.
I was just thinking before: I cannot fathom it when people really hate you. I have seen you get fed up with things and a bit short-tempered maybe, but almost always after pretty intense provocation. I have also seen you persist in discussing things long after many others would have written off the effort as a waste of time. I have seen you apologise without reservation when you’ve been wrong. And I’m not aware of any bannings or deletions that were made by you solely on the basis of disagreement.
Good to see that Amos responded positively to your suggestion. Maybe the air can be a little clearer in the future.
Aha! So he did. A treaty is signed.
Wikileaks will release the secret documents tomorrow.
@51
Agree entirely.
Stewart, thanks. :- )
I can fathom how Mooney can really hate me – that’s easy enough. But the others? Not so much.
I think because the big pool of potential allies is on the believer side not the non-believer side. I think the idea is that you have to (be willing to) antagonize one in order to appeal to the other.
This is, as a matter of fact, very similar to the way the Democratic party thinks about the left. Fuck them, they have nowhere else to go; the people we have to appeal to are to the right of us, not to the left.
That’s another reason I’ve never liked it. I’ve never liked the Dems’ focus on their right and total indifference to their left. It irritates me.
In fact – we are
Sister Soulja!
I don’t usually check out Jean’s blog unless I have a special reason, but having been there now, I looked down at recent stuff and there’s something about a visit to “Gnufunland,” which is mainly about the recent exchanges between Josh Rosenau, Jerry and yourself. Then I looked at the comments and, ok, it’s mainly Jean and Amos. But what I did find interesting was the degree to which the whole phenomenon of which we are maybe an offshoot is misunderstood. Amos seems unnecessarily intimidated by us, and he’s within his rights if he doesn’t want to hear about the non-belief of others. Jean did testify as to how difficult coming out at all can still be in certain circumstances. But my jaw dropped a little when I read them speculating about what caused the surge in open atheism. I agree that Dawkins is only one very visible part of a much larger phenomenon and it may be wrong to credit him too much for everything. But the talk about backlashes to Bush… it took another commenter to come in and bring in 9/11, which, after all, has been so explicitly credited for the move to counter-attack, by more than one Horseman.
I can see that there are non-believers for whom the whole issue is not such a big deal, although I can’t imagine any of them located on one of the many front lines. I am reminded of Hitchens on C-Span, recently, but before he knew he was sick, talking about what gets him into debates and he says that the questions of religion are the questions. He has a nice bit there when he remarks on the difference it makes when one debater believes he’s shown up because of evolution and the other thinks another reason has sent him (lousy paraphrase on my part, but that’s the gist).
Bottom line: of course we’re not going to straighten out any of these misunderstandings without cease-fires and finding out that a Gnu is not actually a monster. And there are many things it’s ok to disagree about.
Last one before hitting the sack in my non-American time zone. By making a conciliatory first move, I think you satisfied whatever was bugging Amos. Fine.
And, slightly off-topic, but since you mentioned Wikileaks: my ambiguity (hitherto) has become more negative since the stuff about Israel Shamir came out. Are you up to speed on that one?
Front lines are interesting. I’m not on any personally – Jean is much more so than I am, living in Texas. But I know people, and I know of people…Sara Mohammad in Stockholm for instance. So I sort of am. I pay attention to it and write about it and think about it, so it is kind of a front line in that way.
My move wasn’t all that conciliatory! I pointed out that I’d been replying, not instigating. Fair’s fair. But now that the fire is ceased, I’m a little ray of sunshine.
No, not up to speed at all on Israel Shamir. Clueless.
Resolution broken, one more before shutdown. Here’s one source with another link inside: http://ayaanhirsiali.web-log.nl/ayaanhirsiali/2010/12/israel-shamir-assanges-extremist-employees-in-sweden.html
Yikes. Thanks. Must dig.
Happy sleepybyes!
Okay! We’ve got peace in our time. Have a glass of Ribena on the house.
Now I have to sub a review for TPM. That’s my status update.